Real amps vs fake amps

[Jumble Jumble]

So I've had a good look and I can't really find a thread that's solely about this subject. It quite often comes up in other threads, but it's often not really appropriate to the actual subject of the thread. So in this thread we can actually devote ourselves to talking about analog vs digital amps. Where we've got to, where we've been, the pros and cons, and so on.

Let's keep it to amps and save FX for another day.

So, I'll start with a summary of my opinions and experience with these.

Analog amps: I've said "analog" rather than tube because of course, transistor amps have existed for a long time. So we have our favourite amps like Marshall's JCM800 in the tube corner, along with stuff like Roland's JC-120 in the transistor camp.

Digital amps: this is everything from an iPhone app like AmpliTube, through mid-range stuff like the POD, up to the frighteningly powerful and expensive Axe FX.

A key thing that I immediately found when I first started playing around with modelling (a Pod 2 a decade ago) is that they don't sound like a real amp. Wait, what? Isn't that a bit of a problem? Yes, maybe it is. When I play a real amp (say a Marshall half-stack), the sound is instantly identifiable. A 4x12 just sounds like a 4x12 and nothing else sounds like it. As you move your head around the room, the sound changes because those speakers are so focused. And there's a lot of air moving - you can really feel it.

However, and this is the key realisation that it took me quite a long time to get to: that is not the sound you're hearing on your favourite albums, and it's not the sound you're hearing at big gigs (anything where the guitar amp itself isn't providing the bulk of the sound to the audience). The cabinet has one or more mics pointed at it, and that is the tone on the record or coming over the PA. That recorded sound is what modellers are aimed at achieving. What this means is that even if they sound good, they don't feel right. I really noticed that I didn't feel like what I was playing sounded as good as it did on my real amp, but when I played back a recording of my playing it sounded more or less how I would expect it to sound. The modeller was doing its job quite well.

The other thing, of course, was that the POD 2 really wasn't that great of a modeller. It didn't have many amp models and the ones it did have weren't particularly great-sounding. This led to me abandoning the POD and going back to tube amps.

Now of course modelling has massively improved. It has got to the point where a recorded sound from a modeller is indistinguishable from a recorded sound from a real amp. It still doesn't give you the "amp in the room" feeling, but to a listener it gives the "amp in front of the mic" feeling perfectly.

The other thing is, you can now turn off cab simulation in the modellers and run the output into a real guitar cab. I haven't actually tried this yet, but in theory that's the path to go down to get the "amp in the room" feeling back. You could sit down in front of your 4x12 and play your stuff, feeling the power and focus of the cabinet, while you take a direct output from the modeller to the recording desk so that you don't need to bother with microphones. I can imagine that being a popular option, if it works.

Here are some different playing situations and the pros and cons.

Home practice (no limit on noise level)
Surely a real amp wins here outright. If you can crank it without getting into trouble, then it's just too much fun to do anything else. A modeller through some big speakers will be fun, but it won't be the same.

Home practice (with a noise limit)
There are two ways around this. One is to get a really small tube amp, like 5W or even 1W. This supposedly allows you to crank the output up, driving the amp, without it getting too loud. I don't know about you, but this doesn't work for me. I still have to turn the amp down really really quiet if I don't want the neighbours to hear. You might be able to plug headphones into your little tube amp, but then the cab is having no effect on the sound so you're not getting the full experience.

The other option is of course to use a modeller - you can run it at any volume you like without affecting sound, or you can plug in a set of headphones. This will basically sound like you're sitting playing in the control room in a studio with your amp next door, mic'd up. This is a great way of doing silent practice.

Recording
Real: Of course you can set up your real amp, get the exact tone you want, then mic it up. A good engineer should be able to get the tone of your amp as you hear it from your favourite part of the room, on to tape. The only downsides of this are: you need a good engineer; it takes time to set up; you need to rent studio space for the whole time you're recording.

Digital: If you have a good modeller then this works just as well as a real amp. With the Kemper (and I think the Axe FX II), you could even set your own amp up in a studio, profile it, and then have that sound whenever you need it. This means you can do the rest of your recording at home without the need for studio rental. Of course, the usual modelling thing also applies: you can have a LOT of amps, some of which would be very very expensive to rent or buy.

Small gigs
What I mean here is a gig where your amp is providing the sound that the audience hears - no PA system and no mic on the amp. What to use:

Real amp - pros: You get the feeling and fun of playing in front of a real cab.
Real amp - cons: What you hear and what the audience hear might be different, depending on where a listener is in the room.
Digital amp - pros: You hear what the audience hears; more amps available.
Digital amp - cons: Might be difficult to get feedback; no feeling from the cab.

Big gigs

Very similar pros and cons

Real amp - pros: You get the feeling and fun of playing in front of a real cab.
Real amp - cons: What you hear and what the audience hear will be different, as the audience hear the mic output.
Digital amp - pros: You hear what the audience hears; more amps available.
Digital amp - cons: Might be difficult to get feedback; no feeling from the cab

---

There are also pros and cons that apply to all scenarios. The digital amps are much lighter and more portable than tube amps. With digital if there's a PA at the gig you don't need to take a cabinet. Digital gives you more amps on hand. Digital does not have tubes to fail and be replaced. Digital power amps don't blow up without a speaker plugged in. Digital amps are based around computers; in theory at least, computers sometimes crash.

I'm interested to here more pros and cons in different scenarios, or especially if you own both, which ones you use in which scenarios and why.

I'm not very interested in unsupported opinion statements like "modelling is better, period" or "digital stuff has no soul". They don't add anything to the conversation and don't help anyone who might be researching the topic.

I plan to back up what I've said about being able to tell the difference quite soon, by posting up a whole bunch of clips recorded in both ways. Once we have a lot of attempts at correctly identifying them we can look at some averages and see how we do.

 

[stratamania]

I hope this thread remains constructive and you have raised some very good points for what hopefully can be a good discussion.

I used to own an Axe FXII till very recently so have experience of a number of modellers and real amps.

You cannot profile with the Axe FX II like with the Kemper, what you can do is a tone match of a cab for example, this could be of a real miked up source or from a recording.

One important part of the sound is the IR impulse response of cab and mike.  Lower end modellers such as Boss or Line 6 don't allow you to use them but there is a product from Two notes that you can load with IRs and use with a modeller, torpedo C.A.B.  The Axe FX you can load user IRs so it's built in functionality.

Two notes also do a load box along with IR capability that you could use with a real amp. A lot of the tonal differences are in the CAB.

Interesting that in the 70s and 80s we tried to get somewhere near a live sound onto record and now folks are trying to reproduce a studio sound on the stage.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

I've heard of this IR stuff but don't really understand much about it. Is that one of the big differences with the higher-end modellers?

The thing about reproducing studio sound on stage is interesting; I hadn't really looked at it that way. Of course, you could do it the way round by profiling your live rig and taking that into the studio.

I think even more, though, it's just taking guitarists into the situation that keyboard players have been in forever: wherever they go, their equipment sounds the same. The sound they hear is the sound the audience hears or the sound that's going to the tape. I can see that taking some getting used to.

 

[Cagey]

I've heard of this IR stuff but don't really understand much about it. Is that one of the big differences with the higher-end modellers?

Yes. Basically, an IR curve describes the reaction of a system to an input. In audio, the speakers color things quite a bit because they have resonant points, the cabinet vibrates in sympathy slightly out of phase with the speaker, there's inertia in the speaker cones and voice coils, there's some resistance and inductive reactance involved, etc. All these things mean that when you send a signal to thing, the conversion process from electrical energy to mechanical movement is not exact. So, you send it a precisely defined signal (an impulse), observe the reaction (response), and store that information. Then you can use it to reproduce that behavior on a different system.  Since the information is stored as a file, you can profile numerous systems and reproduce their behavior on a single system. Takes a lotta processing power to do this, which is why you don't really see it in lower-end modellers.

How accurately the signal gets reproduced depends on the accuracy of the different system you're using to produce it. That's why you often hear about people with higher-end modellers using FR/FR (Full Range/Flat Response) speakers as opposed to the generally brutal/primitive systems guitar amps typically drive. FR/FR speakers are designed to reproduce signals across the audible frequency range with little effect on the waveform regardless of frequency or amplitude. Studio monitors are in this category, and increasingly PA speakers and stage monitors strive for this. The thinking being that you don't want to change the sound, you just want to make it louder.

 

[stratamania]

On the IRs, Cagey, has explained it. You can also buy these from companies such as Ownhammer and Redwirez, they can also be used in DAWs.

Here is an idea take a lower end modeller such as an HD500(x) which you can't load your own IRs in, get a TwoNotes C.A.B put it in the loop of the modeller, turn off power amp modelling or use only a preamp model, you then run this signal through the two notes power amp modelling and CAB IR. It would not surprise me that you start to get something quite useful. It would also free up a hell of a lot of the DSP in the modeller as it is then doing no cab modelling at all. Even though you can't load IRs into an HD500 doesn't mean that when it is doing  full modelling it isn't using a built in Cab model and Mic.

 

[TBurst Std]

As an AXE II user - I can vouch that

<Digital amp - cons: Might be difficult to get feedback; no feeling from the cab>

is not an issue
its not even an issue at home playing through my QSC HPR112i. Then again I'm playing at stage volume (hehehehe, yes I will take it to 110 db at home).

Had a neat patch on the Ultra that did harmonic feedback automatically even at mouse fart volumes. Works great for live PF's Sorrow.
Haven't ported it to the II yet.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

That sounds interesting. Could you control the feedback at all - for instance, could you get an F# instead of an E feeding back on the last low E of the intro before the rest of the band kicks in, like on Pulse?

Glad to hear you're getting "real" amp sound through an AFXII though, I wasn't sure it was possible yet.

 

[TBurst Std]

It can be controlled.
What note is sounded out can be loosely programmed relative to the note actually being played.

Basically the 1st block was a pitch shift set to a fixed harmony.
Its mix and master pan in the setup was linked to a Modifier using an Envelope as the controller.

Next was a compressor that was linked to a modifier using Envelope as the controller.

So basically using a envelope to control everything, as an original note decayed, the envelope kicks in and offers a fixed harmony note that pans upwards in the mix (as the original note decays), while a compressor blooms it at the same time.

 

[TBurst Std]

Keep in mind this is for mouse fart volumes.
No need for it at stage volume.

 

[mayfly]

An excellent thread.  I'm pleased to contribute.

My own interest in modeling amps stems from the following frustrations from using tube amps:

1 - Tube amps sound different live than how they sound in rehearsal.  This stems from the "beaming" effect of the speaker cabs, the mic used on them, and the soundman.  What you hear and what the audience hears are two different things.
2 - Tube amps are really hard to record.  I've done a bunch of recording and getting a good tone on tape from a tube amp I always found to be difficult.  There are a lot of variables involved and I only managed it a few times.  Annoying when you just want to get an idea down.
3 - Tube amps are too loud.  The vocals are the focus with our band.  Even with my Fender Deluxe Reverbs, and my AC30 clones, the amps at the sweet spot were too loud to clearly hear the vocals live.  This also meant that rehearsal volumes were way to loud to be comfortable.  You get a wakeup call when you realize you're wearing earplugs at rehearsal all the time.  And that's with 30 watts!

Modeling 'amps' address all of these frustrations.  The only issue is "sound quality", which I think is more of a perception thing than an actual problem.
BTW, I did not start out with an AxeFX.  I started with a Vox Tonelab.  That's a good sounding portable unit that I'd recommend over all the other "cheap" modeling amps out there.  It easily sounds good enough for a club gig, and it also sounds pretty good on record.  The user interface uses knobs and it's easy to program.  The only problem I had with it was there was a slight dropout when changing patches, and the build quality was not that strong (some buttons stopped working).  That's why after a few years I "graduated" to the AxeFX.  That rig is all that everyone says it is.  However, I kept the ToneLab around as a backup;  it sounds pretty darn good.

The only other problem I have had live is that using a modeling amp really highlights a bad PA.  However, at least you can hear that bad PA and do something about it.  Better that than being oblivious to it and making the audience suffer.

BTW, This record was recorded with the ToneLab:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/infant-songs/id386612123

This record was recorded with the AxeFX:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/run-down-the-rails/id483173258

In the end, the thing to remember when considering any piece of gear is to understand what you're trying to achieve and trust your ears. 

Have fun,
Trevor

 

[Steve_Karl]

I just bought the TH2 from Overloud ( http://overloud.com/products/th2.php ) a week and a few days ago, and it the best rig (real or virtual) I've ever played through.

What really impresses me is the touch sensitivity that it has.
The responsiveness to the difference between light and hard picking and everything in between is very convincing and believable. I can *feel* the response characteristics. I can "play off of the sound" the way I would with a real amp.
The TH2 seems to have all of the positive aspects of a few great tube amps and none of the down sides.

The "dark face" and "bass face" are supposed to be a black faced bandmaster and a tweed bassman, both of which I have owned in the distant past and they're convincing for sound and feel.

I never believed it could be done, by anyone, but Overloud has really done good with this TH2.

Even though the standalone version doesn't work on my XP audio partition (no big deal)
the TH2 is great as a plugin inside of Sonar.

 

[jackthehack]

My input

- I've not ever been pleased by any modeling devices plugged directly into the board for recording, and while I haven't tried the very latest generation, I've tried most of the previous ones.

Some tips I've learned over the years recording tube amps:

- Always use 2 mikes on the amp, and blend the sound as necessary to get what you want onto tape/digital media.
For open backed amps place one mike behind the amp and one in front. If using an enclosed cab, one in front and the second somewhere else in the room. Exactly where and how far from the amp to place the mikes will vary from room to room. Much trial and error is needed to find the "sweet spots", and they may change if from recording to the next you alter the amp's volume level much. I've spent days working this out when moving to a new recording room.

- Never try to record in too small of a space; I'd say a 12' x 12'/4m x 4m space is minimal with the amp somewhere near the center. The higher the dB level of the amp to get the sound you want, the larger space you need.

- Smaller wattage amps work mo' better - if memory serves me correctly all of Led Zeppelin 1 and most of the second album were recorded on a little 5 or 10 watt Supro combo amp, regardless of the Marshalls used on stage.

- Get the amp up off the floor, on a stand or a chair.

- I'm currently using an Egnater Rebel 20 head dimed down to between 1-5 watts dependent on desired sound out and run it though a Celestion Vintage 30 in my Fender Blues Deluxe because it's easier to get the sound I want from that miked front and rear rather than using one of the enclosed 1x12 cabs I'd use at a gig.

 

[Steve_Karl]

My input

- I've not ever been pleased by any modeling devices plugged directly into the board for recording, and while I haven't tried the very latest generation, I've tried most of the previous ones.

Similar here. I tried quite a few over the years and it only took a few minutes to discover that they weren't doing it for me.
That's why I was so surprised by the TH2.

TH2 has a fully functional 15 day trial download.

 

[alterbridgefan]

I'll probably go to hell, but I'm considering finding a used axe-fx...

 

[Cagey]

There are used ones out there, but they're like Mesa Boogies - they cost nearly as much as a new one. Then you need a transparent amp and a FR/FR speaker, and finally the floor controller. Even if you find some good deals, you're probably gonna be down between $3,500-$4,000. May as well buy new and get the warranty.

 

[swarfrat]

Lance Keltner's retrowreck is also appealing as a amp that feels like an amp and not a smart phone/washing machine/toaster/wifi router/web server that also has some effects and a stomp box inside.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

So I've had a good look and I can't really find a thread that's solely about this subject. It quite often comes up in other threads, but it's often not really appropriate to the actual subject of the thread. So in this thread we can actually devote ourselves to talking about analog vs digital amps. Where we've got to, where we've been, the pros and cons, and so on.

Let's keep it to amps and save FX for another day.

So, I'll start with a summary of my opinions and experience with these.

Analog amps: I've said "analog" rather than tube because of course, transistor amps have existed for a long time. So we have our favourite amps like Marshall's JCM800 in the tube corner, along with stuff like Roland's JC-120 in the transistor camp.

Digital amps: this is everything from an iPhone app like AmpliTube, through mid-range stuff like the POD, up to the frighteningly powerful and expensive Axe FX.

A key thing that I immediately found when I first started playing around with modelling (a Pod 2 a decade ago) is that they don't sound like a real amp. Wait, what? Isn't that a bit of a problem? Yes, maybe it is. When I play a real amp (say a Marshall half-stack), the sound is instantly identifiable. A 4x12 just sounds like a 4x12 and nothing else sounds like it. As you move your head around the room, the sound changes because those speakers are so focused. And there's a lot of air moving - you can really feel it.

However, and this is the key realisation that it took me quite a long time to get to: that is not the sound you're hearing on your favourite albums, and it's not the sound you're hearing at big gigs (anything where the guitar amp itself isn't providing the bulk of the sound to the audience). The cabinet has one or more mics pointed at it, and that is the tone on the record or coming over the PA. That recorded sound is what modellers are aimed at achieving. What this means is that even if they sound good, they don't feel right. I really noticed that I didn't feel like what I was playing sounded as good as it did on my real amp, but when I played back a recording of my playing it sounded more or less how I would expect it to sound. The modeller was doing its job quite well.

The other thing, of course, was that the POD 2 really wasn't that great of a modeller. It didn't have many amp models and the ones it did have weren't particularly great-sounding. This led to me abandoning the POD and going back to tube amps.

Now of course modelling has massively improved. It has got to the point where a recorded sound from a modeller is indistinguishable from a recorded sound from a real amp. It still doesn't give you the "amp in the room" feeling, but to a listener it gives the "amp in front of the mic" feeling perfectly.

The other thing is, you can now turn off cab simulation in the modellers and run the output into a real guitar cab. I haven't actually tried this yet, but in theory that's the path to go down to get the "amp in the room" feeling back. You could sit down in front of your 4x12 and play your stuff, feeling the power and focus of the cabinet, while you take a direct output from the modeller to the recording desk so that you don't need to bother with microphones. I can imagine that being a popular option, if it works.

Here are some different playing situations and the pros and cons.

Home practice (no limit on noise level)
Surely a real amp wins here outright. If you can crank it without getting into trouble, then it's just too much fun to do anything else. A modeller through some big speakers will be fun, but it won't be the same.

Home practice (with a noise limit)
There are two ways around this. One is to get a really small tube amp, like 5W or even 1W. This supposedly allows you to crank the output up, driving the amp, without it getting too loud. I don't know about you, but this doesn't work for me. I still have to turn the amp down really really quiet if I don't want the neighbours to hear. You might be able to plug headphones into your little tube amp, but then the cab is having no effect on the sound so you're not getting the full experience.

The other option is of course to use a modeller - you can run it at any volume you like without affecting sound, or you can plug in a set of headphones. This will basically sound like you're sitting playing in the control room in a studio with your amp next door, mic'd up. This is a great way of doing silent practice.

Recording
Real: Of course you can set up your real amp, get the exact tone you want, then mic it up. A good engineer should be able to get the tone of your amp as you hear it from your favourite part of the room, on to tape. The only downsides of this are: you need a good engineer; it takes time to set up; you need to rent studio space for the whole time you're recording.

Digital: If you have a good modeller then this works just as well as a real amp. With the Kemper (and I think the Axe FX II), you could even set your own amp up in a studio, profile it, and then have that sound whenever you need it. This means you can do the rest of your recording at home without the need for studio rental. Of course, the usual modelling thing also applies: you can have a LOT of amps, some of which would be very very expensive to rent or buy.

Small gigs
What I mean here is a gig where your amp is providing the sound that the audience hears - no PA system and no mic on the amp. What to use:

Real amp - pros: You get the feeling and fun of playing in front of a real cab.
Real amp - cons: What you hear and what the audience hear might be different, depending on where a listener is in the room.
Digital amp - pros: You hear what the audience hears; more amps available.
Digital amp - cons: Might be difficult to get feedback; no feeling from the cab.

Big gigs

Very similar pros and cons

Real amp - pros: You get the feeling and fun of playing in front of a real cab.
Real amp - cons: What you hear and what the audience hear will be different, as the audience hear the mic output.
Digital amp - pros: You hear what the audience hears; more amps available.
Digital amp - cons: Might be difficult to get feedback; no feeling from the cab

---

There are also pros and cons that apply to all scenarios. The digital amps are much lighter and more portable than tube amps. With digital if there's a PA at the gig you don't need to take a cabinet. Digital gives you more amps on hand. Digital does not have tubes to fail and be replaced. Digital power amps don't blow up without a speaker plugged in. Digital amps are based around computers; in theory at least, computers sometimes crash.

I'm interested to here more pros and cons in different scenarios, or especially if you own both, which ones you use in which scenarios and why.

I'm not very interested in unsupported opinion statements like "modelling is better, period" or "digital stuff has no soul". They don't add anything to the conversation and don't help anyone who might be researching the topic.

I plan to back up what I've said about being able to tell the difference quite soon, by posting up a whole bunch of clips recorded in both ways. Once we have a lot of attempts at correctly identifying them we can look at some averages and see how we do.

"Real amps" vs. "fake" amps.  I just can't leave this one alone.

I think it's widely known here on the forum (or at least by you, Jumble  ccasion14: ) that I most certainly favor a "real" amp over modelers.  IMO, nothing compares to the sound of a good tube head running a few effects.  I find the tone to be crisper, and more "detailed" in terms of sound.  I like the sound of a little bit of "noise" with my playing.

While I've never even seen an AxeFX or Kemper in person, I've used cheaper modelers like Line 6's UX2, and I even own one.  I love the thing.  It's a fun piece of gear, and while it's fun, it falls short of sounding "natural."  That being said, I have recorded a few songs using its effects, and to be quite honest, it wasn't half bad when I was playing on a "clean channel."  Things were different once I dirtied up the tone.  It was hissy, staticky, and simply put, it sounded like a radio station that wasn't tuned in all the way.  I messed with settings for hours, yet still failed to "tune out" unwanted noise.  The sound was extremely thin, regardless what I did (I'd be happy to post up a recording I did while using the UX2). 

For gigging out, I'd most definitely wanna spend the extra time and effort to lug in a head, cabinet, and pedalboard, but for playing around the house, there's something to be said of not having 20 different cables strewn about the man-cave or "jam room."  If someone were to buy me an expensive modeler like a Kemper, I'd be happy to mess around with it, and I may even be quite impressed with it, but in the end, it'd be like having sex with a real person as to having sex with a blow-up doll.  Sure, the blow-up doll may be fun, and maybe even semi-rewarding, but it would still fall short of the real deal.

I'd like to plug into a Kemper or AxeFX and be able to compare them back to back with a "real" amplifier (blindfolded), but I still think I would be able to tell a difference between the two.

I'm not going to say one is better than the other, but I think everyone will have their favorites.  You'll never be able to convert a Chevy man into a Ford man, and vice-versa.  It wouldn't matter how many justifications were made for one being better than the other, people like what they like.  For me, I PREFER a real amplifier to a modeler, but modelers are a great deal of fun to mess with.  If I find the right one, I may even find I prefer recording with it to that of a "real" amp, but I haven't found that "right one."

Gimme both, the real equipment and the modeler.

 

[TBurst Std]

I may make a suggestion to Fractal (Axe-FX), sort of a link so that non-Fractal people can find local Fractal users willing to allow a demo. Patches and tones that people want all differ, so its more than a 1 hr item.

Ill toss this out, I am in Orlando FL. Anyone who wants to drive to my place and try an AXE II, PM me.
I will say my FRFR solution tends to be a touch bass heavy as compared to the last 2 PA systems I played through.

All I know is I got kudos today for my tone from a number of people.

 

[stratamania]

If you have never played through a real Axe FXII correctly set up, you can't say nothing else comes close to a tube amp.  Also at least one track on Steve Lukathers Transition album is a Kemper.

But another thing with high end modellers is that there is a learning curve, e.g. Not just with the thing itself but with all of the modelled equipment you have to set it up in a virtual type of rig. One of the things I noticed on the Fractal forum was that often users would lack understanding of real world gear and so would not have this as a basis of understanding on which to build.

So it's my observation that those who can get the most from modellers like the Fractal, have at least some familiarity with "real gear" but having said that a lot of the presets are very usable.

I sold my Axe FXII as part of a reorganisation and it's left a bit of a vacuum.  There's a pun in there related to valves or tubes.

I may need another Axe FX at some point  :icon_smile:

 

[Jumble Jumble]

I think the only two units that anyone (outside of marketing) has ever said faithfully recreate a tube amp are the AxeFX and the Kemper.

The Kemper does actually have an A/B switch on it so once you've made your profile you can switch between them and see how close you've gotten. I remember reading a thing a while back where the user had used the A/B switch, and then decided the switch must not be working, because they were only hearing the real amp. So they turned off the real amp, and hey presto, the switch was working fine. It just really was that good.